Post by on Sept 5, 2012 1:12:10 GMT

Basically, everyone. If you like to lie in bed a bit late of a Saturday morning, you're a hater. If you like to tip your waiter (in the US anyway), you're a hater. If you've ever paid any kind of tax without wringing your insides at the injustice of the thing, you're a hater. If you haven't created a global multinational corporation and extracted every last cent of resources, labor and profit from multiple countries, you're a hater. If you don't think children under the age of twelve can do a decent 12 hour day's work and earn their keep, you're a hater. Even if you're a raving lunatic American Evangelical Christian Conservative, you're a hater.

Absolute nonsense, once again, and doubly so for having come from the same source.

Post by on Sept 5, 2012 1:21:49 GMT

“Speak” in this context is a colloquial reference to peculiarities of speech characteristic of a particular group. Thus we may have “political speak” (e.g. dog-whistle politics) or “mason speak (e.g., "meet on the level"). “Hate speak” can be a useful term in reference to Randoids speaking of the primacy of individual rights, when referring to over-privileged individuals, including tycoons exploiting the system under the guise of so-called "rights" they have wrangled and manipulated for themselves (this was the context in which Rand was arguing).

The primacy of individual rights extends to all individuals, not just tycoons, as you so categorize it. It is also most certainly not the context in which Rand used it, it is your particular interpretation as filtered through your hatred of those who have more than do you, or those unfortunates you so deign to champion.

Instead of distortions through the lens of hatred, let us, instead, see what she says, in context on the subject of individual rights:

"Individual rights is the only proper principle of human coexistence, because it rests on man’s nature, i.e., the nature and requirements of a conceptual consciousness. Man gains enormous values from dealing with other men; living in a human society is his proper way of life—but only on certain conditions. Man is not a lone wolf and he is not a social animal. He is a contractual animal. He has to plan his life long-range, make his own choices, and deal with other men by voluntary agreement (and he has to be able to rely on their observance of the agreements they entered)."

“A Nation’s Unity,”The Ayn Rand Letter, II, 2, 3

"Since Man has inalienable individual rights, this means that the same rights are held, individually, by every man, by all men, at all times. Therefore, the rights of one man cannot and must not violate the rights of another.

For instance: a man has the right to live, but he has no right to take the life of another. He has the right to be free, but no right to enslave another. He has the right to choose his own happiness, but no right to decide that his happiness lies in the misery (or murder or robbery or enslavement) of another. The very right upon which he acts defines the same right of another man, and serves as a guide to tell him what he may or may not do."

“Textbook of Americanism,”The Ayn Rand Column, 84

A right cannot be violated except by physical force. One man cannot deprive another of his life, nor enslave him, nor forbid him to pursue his happiness, except by using force against him. Whenever a man is made to act without his own free, personal, individual, voluntary consent—his right has been violated.

Therefore, we can draw a clear-cut division between the rights of one man and those of another. It is an objective division—not subject to differences of opinion, nor to majority decision, nor to the arbitrary decree of society. No man has the right to initiate the use of physical force against another man.

Post by Tamrin on Sept 5, 2012 1:42:30 GMT

“Speak” in this context is a colloquial reference to peculiarities of speech characteristic of a particular group. Thus we may have “political speak” (e.g. dog-whistle politics) or “mason speak (e.g., "meet on the level"). “Hate speak” can be a useful term in reference to Randoids speaking of the primacy of individual rights, when referring to over-privileged individuals, including tycoons exploiting the system under the guise of so-called "rights" they have wrangled and manipulated for themselves (this was the context in which Rand was arguing).

The primacy of individual rights extends to all individuals, not just tycoons, as you so categorize it. It is also most certainly not the context in which Rand used it, it is your particular interpretation as filtered through your hatred of those who have more than do you, or those unfortunates you so deign to champion.

Post by on Sept 5, 2012 2:36:00 GMT

Objectivism is all about hate and disgust for those so unfortunate as to not make "superman" status.

Nowhere did Rand ever advocate a "superman." That was Friedrich Nietzsche, and this is what she had to say on him:

Philosophically, Nietzsche is a mystic and an irrationalist. His metaphysics consists of a somewhat “Byronic” and mystically “malevolent” universe; his epistemology subordinates reason to “will,” or feeling or instinct or blood or innate virtues of character. But, as a poet, he projects at times (not consistently) a magnificent feeling for man’s greatness, expressed in emotional, not intellectual, terms.

“Introduction to The Fountainhead,”The Objectivist, March 1968, 6

Nietzsche’s rebellion against altruism consisted of replacing the sacrifice of oneself to others by the sacrifice of others to oneself. He proclaimed that the ideal man is moved, not by reason, but by his “blood,” by his innate instincts, feelings and will to power—that he is predestined by birth to rule others and sacrifice them to himself, while they are predestined by birth to be his victims and slaves—that reason, logic, principles are futile and debilitating, that morality is useless, that the “superman” is “beyond good and evil,” that he is a “beast of prey” whose ultimate standard is nothing but his own whim. Thus Nietzsche’s rejection of the Witch Doctor consisted of elevating Attila into a moral ideal—which meant: a double surrender of morality to the Witch Doctor.

Post by commiegirl on Sept 5, 2012 4:59:41 GMT

Rand wasn't very bright, nor was she very clever. Her analysis of history is totally wrong, this is one fine example.

"It is capitalism that abolished serfdom and slavery in all the civilized countries of the world. It is the capitalist North that destroyed the slavery of the agrarian-feudal South in the United States."- Ayn Rand

Umm, the slave trade wasn't Capitalist ?

Her views on race and the struggle against white skin privilege are also repulsive.

"the Negroes -- are now in the vanguard of the destruction of civil rights."- Ayn Rand

Post by on Sept 6, 2012 0:41:39 GMT

Nowhere did Rand ever advocate a "superman." That was Friedrich Nietzsche, and this is what she had to say on him:

Rand in praise of serial killer Edward Hickman: "He has the true, innate psychology of a Superman. He can never realize and feel ‘other people.’”

She also claimed Hickman has a “genuinely beautiful soul.”

A man who dismembered a 12 year old girl and taunted her father with the girls head.

Again, you are quoting out of context. I am disinclined to discuss any subject further with you, as you seem to simply be arguing for the sake of argument. Please do so with someone else. No further responses will be forthcoming, as I already destroyed your argument, as anyone who reads this thread objectively can see.

Post by commiegirl on Sept 6, 2012 3:25:14 GMT

Rand the Homophobe:

"To proclaim spiritual sisterhood with lesbians... is so repulsive a set of premises from so loathsome a sense of life that an accurate commentary would require the kind of language I do not like to see in print."

Rand the Patriarch:

"An ideal woman is a man-worshipper, and an ideal man is the highest symbol of mankind."

"Man experiences the essence of his masculinity in the act of romantic dominance; woman experiences the essence of her femininity in the act of romantic surrender."

Rand the pro-Apartheid racist:

""Palestinians had no rights and that it was moral to support Israel, the sole outpost of civilization in a region ruled by barbarism"

Post by Tamrin on Sept 6, 2012 4:19:32 GMT

More on Rand the racist:

Although Rand denounced racism as the "most crudely primitive form of collectivism" and supported property rights, none of it mattered if you just weren't capitalist enough for her. She caused a pinch of controversy when she said this about Native Americans:

They didn't have any rights to the land, and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights which they had not conceived and were not using. What was it that they were fighting for, when they opposed white men on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existence, their 'right' to keep part of the earth untouched, unused and not even as property, but just keep everybody out so that you will live practically like an animal, or a few caves above it. Any white person who brings the element of civilization has the right to take over this continent.

Post by Tamrin on Sept 6, 2012 4:31:20 GMT

An appeal to belief suggests that, since most reasonable people (of your sort) believe something, you should believe it, too. “Educators fear that vouchers will undermine funding for public schools.” Educators in particular might be inclined to conclude that this fear is universal among educators, and identify with the belief because they identify with the group.

Appeals to common practice suggest that most everyone does it, and furthermore that it is therefore okay; “Nobody in California comes to a full stop. That’s why they call it ‘the California Stop.’”

An appeal to expertise dares you to pit your own ignorance against experts making a value claim (a Grammy award-winning country singer publicly endorses a political candidate, for example). Now, specialists agreeing on objective claims about matters within their field of expertise are reasonably to be believed, but specialists making value judgments outside their field might not...

Phrases like the following might signal an appeal to belief, expertise, or common practice:

Post by Tamrin on Sept 6, 2012 5:02:57 GMT

As the anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist puts it, tax increases amount to "stealing" money from those who have earned their wealth and who deserve to keep it.

A subtext for this moral claim was provided by the famed 1950s novelist Ayn Rand and her "gospel of selfishness." To quote one of her characters, the architect Howard Roark in The Fountainhead: "All that proceeds from man's independent ego is good. All that which proceeds from man's dependence upon men is evil... The first right on earth is the right of the ego. Man's first duty is to himself...His moral law is to do what he wishes, provided his wish does not depend primarily upon other men....The only good which men can do to one another and the only statement of their proper relationship is - hands off!"

Warren Buffet disagrees. In a recent op-ed piece in the New York Times, he wrote: "While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks. Some of us are investment managers who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as "carried interest," thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate. Others own stock index futures for 10 minutes and have 60 percent of their gain taxed at 15 percent, as if they'd been long-term investors. These and other blessings are showered upon us by legislators in Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species. It's nice to have friends in high places...

"Back in the 1980s and 1990s, tax rates for the rich were far higher, and my percentage rate was in the middle of the pack. According to a theory I sometimes hear, I should have thrown a fit and refused to invest because of the elevated tax rates on capital gains and dividends...I didn't refuse, nor did others...

Most Americans, it turns out, agree with Buffett. A national survey conducted in July while the battle raged in Washington showed that 72 percent of Americans (almost three quarters) thought that taxes should be raised on those earning more than $250,000, including 54 percent of those who identified themselves as Republicans!

The bottom line here is that Ayn Rand, Grover Norquist, and other defiant libertarians have got it wrong about fairness. As I explain at length in my book, The Fair Society, a viable "social contract" requires us to take into account and balance three distinct fairness claims. The first is "equality" with respect to our basic biological needs - an imperative that we all share equally and a prime obligation for every society. The second fairness principle involves providing adequate rewards for merit ("equity"), though not all claims for merit are valid (obviously). And the third principle is "reciprocity" - paying a fair share to support our society in return for the benefits we receive.

Reciprocity is where Ayn Rand's brand of libertarianism fails the fairness test. Indeed, such terms as "fairness" and "social justice" are not even a part of her lexicon. It's a fatally defective philosophy.

Our choice is clear: We can opt for a fair society, or we can follow the dark, well-traveled road taken by so many failed societies of the past (and present), which leads to a nation that serves the interests mainly of the rich and powerful. To me, the right choice is obvious.

S & F, Philip Carter / The Quarry / If there is anything in the universe that can't stand discussion, let it crack (Wendell Phillips)

An appeal to belief suggests that, since most reasonable people (of your sort) believe something, you should believe it, too. “Educators fear that vouchers will undermine funding for public schools.” Educators in particular might be inclined to conclude that this fear is universal among educators, and identify with the belief because they identify with the group.

Appeals to common practice suggest that most everyone does it, and furthermore that it is therefore okay; “Nobody in California comes to a full stop. That’s why they call it ‘the California Stop.’”

An appeal to expertise dares you to pit your own ignorance against experts making a value claim (a Grammy award-winning country singer publicly endorses a political candidate, for example). Now, specialists agreeing on objective claims about matters within their field of expertise are reasonably to be believed, but specialists making value judgments outside their field might not...

Phrases like the following might signal an appeal to belief, expertise, or common practice: